Expert witness says most popular Hotfile downloads are open source apps

A study conducted by a Duke University law professor shows that the most popular items downloaded from file locker website Hotfile are open source software applications. This could pose challenges for litigation against the site, which hinges on whether Hotfile has substantial non-infringing uses.

Professor Boyle’s statement, which cites the results of a more comprehensive statistical analysis of the content stored on Hotfile, was included in a sealed filing that was leaked this week by TorrentFreak.

A locker site,at least one that doesn't actively encourage uploading unlicensed material as the government suggests Megaupload did, should be THE definitive case for safe harbor. As long as they don't manage the files, honor take down requests, and obviously don't ask anyone to upload pirated content nor upload it themselves, than safe harbor applies.

A locker site,at least one that doesn't actively encourage uploading unlicensed material as the government suggests Megaupload did, should be THE definitive case for safe harbor. As long as they don't manage the files, honor take down requests, and obviously don't ask anyone to upload pirated content nor upload it themselves, than safe harbor applies.

A locker site,at least one that doesn't actively encourage uploading unlicensed material as the government suggests Megaupload did, should be THE definitive case for safe harbor. As long as they don't manage the files, honor take down requests, and obviously don't ask anyone to upload pirated content nor upload it themselves, than safe harbor applies.

Then I guess MU falls under the safe harbor rules too then huh?

The allegations against them are specifically for things that break safe harbor. I recall some of the allegations being that some employees specifically downloaded copy-written files from users accounts.

Whether this is true or not is for the courts to decide given the evidence. But you generally need quite a bit of evidence to get a warrant to arrest people and basically shut the place down.

And this is presumably also why the RIAA / MPAA wants to stop MegaUpload from being able to show what's on its servers, once they've cherry-picked their "infringing" content from it.

If we view MegaUpload as a "test case" for all of the other cases against cyberlockers (which will continue) then there are quite a few procedures which will (hopefully) change, cherry picking evidence and locking up servers being one of them.

believable. Most of the open source communities I've been to use these storage lockers as distribution channels as well. The modding scene has already moved to services like hotfile and similar. All legal uses.

It's quite surprising (well, not really) that Big content would try and misrepresent legal material as "illegal!". You know, like sending music files to a blog and asking them to offer it for download and promotion only to turn around and claim pirating once the blog does just that!

Big content has always wanted it their way, even when they don't own the products in question. now they are trying to shut down as many of these file locker services as they can, simply because they *could be* used to share copyrighted content. As it turns out, file sharing is little more than a trickle compared to the trading of opensource apps. there is a reason they are called media CARTELS.

A locker site,at least one that doesn't actively encourage uploading unlicensed material as the government suggests Megaupload did, should be THE definitive case for safe harbor. As long as they don't manage the files, honor take down requests, and obviously don't ask anyone to upload pirated content nor upload it themselves, than safe harbor applies.

Then I guess MU falls under the safe harbor rules too then huh?

I'd already explained to you why that's not the case in the last thread:

They, unlike their competitors, did not remove content when requested. Even if you consider their removing links while the content remains on site to be sufficient under the DMCA, their advertising partners also informed them of copyrighted material on the site, which they did nothing about - which means they had direct knowledge of copyrighted material on their site, which prohibits them from safe harbour.

(It was probably through one of the ad partners tipping them off that they were able to get a search warrant in the first place.)

They, unlike their competitors, do not ban repeat offenders, which prohibits them from safe harbour.

As an addendum, I'd like to note that I do disagree with them going after Hotfile - there doesn't seem to be much in the way of clear evidence as there was with MegaUpload.

Big content has always wanted it their way, even when they don't own the products in question. now they are trying to shut down as many of these file locker services as they can, simply because they *could be* used to share copyrighted content. As it turns out, file sharing is little more than a trickle compared to the trading of opensource apps. there is a reason they are called media CARTELS.

Yeah, uhh... does anyone remember the Walkman? Cassette tapes? CD's? EVERY step of the way these companies have been trying to stifle innovation in order to protect outdated business models. Shock me, shock me.

believable. Most of the open source communities I've been to use these storage lockers as distribution channels as well. The modding scene has already moved to services like hotfile and similar. All legal uses.

Any time one is moving sizable files around, or sets of same, these locker services acts as a asynchronous fail-safe on transfers, and load distributor if multiple parties wants a copy.

Much easier to upload to such a place and push a url via email or IM then try to transfer same upload via email or IM.

Big content has always wanted it their way, even when they don't own the products in question. now they are trying to shut down as many of these file locker services as they can, simply because they *could be* used to share copyrighted content. As it turns out, file sharing is little more than a trickle compared to the trading of opensource apps. there is a reason they are called media CARTELS.

Yeah, uhh... does anyone remember the Walkman? Cassette tapes? CD's? EVERY step of the way these companies have been trying to stifle innovation in order to protect outdated business models. Shock me, shock me.

Honestly, they only freaked about magnetic tape once people figured out that they could wire the output of one onto the input of another and so make a copy at home. I suspect the labels considered CDs a safe bet until CD-Rs and MP3s showed up. This because until then the production of a CD required bulky and expensive presses.

Now one can mass duplicate a CD or DVD by simply getting a computer with room for multiple -R drives. Sure, their long term quality may not be much to write about. But for someone living on the poverty line they are much more in reach than the pressed kind.

I skipped through his report. It has been missummarized. In his conclusion, he states that he has proven that there are significant legal uses of HotFile. He shows that jDownloader by itself consists of 16 of the Top 100 most downloaded files, and that many other open source / creative commons stuff are in similar situations.

However, I do not believe his methodology can really support the claim that "more people use HotFile for legal than illegal things". For one thing, it is not statistically rigorous in any way (he admits this himself). Second of all, he only looked for the presence of legal downloads, while attacking a previous report (which went looking for illegal downloads) on methodological grounds (correctly I suppose, there were problems with the previous report). Neither of those results is sufficient to defend the above claim. For example, one could easily imagine the case where all them evil do-ers give all their illegal content gibberish names that don't reflect their contents, and are compressed along with some random .txt and .html files that screw up hashes, and where each individual copy may not receive a lot of traffic, but there exists a large set of more or less reposts that each receive traffic.

And so now there is a large group of files whose content is cloaked from easy analysis by filename and/or hash, and also hidden by the long tail. It is irresponsible to ignore this possibility, because one visit to any link sharing forum will show that that is exactly what is happening.

This is not downplaying the legal uses of hotfile and the like at all. But we can't let our biases get in the way.

Professor Boyle’s statement, which cites the results of a more comprehensive statistical analysis of the content stored on Hotfile, was included in a sealed filing that was leaked this week by TorrentFreak.

I skipped through his report. It has been missummarized. In his conclusion, he states that he has proven that there are significant legal uses of HotFile. He shows that jDownloader by itself consists of 16 of the Top 100 most downloaded files, and that many other open source / creative commons stuff are in similar situations.

However, I do not believe his methodology can really support the claim that "more people use HotFile for legal than illegal things". For one thing, it is not statistically rigorous in any way (he admits this himself). Second of all, he only looked for the presence of legal downloads, while attacking a previous report (which went looking for illegal downloads) on methodological grounds (correctly I suppose, there were problems with the previous report). Neither of those results is sufficient to defend the above claim. For example, one could easily imagine the case where all them evil do-ers give all their illegal content gibberish names that don't reflect their contents, and are compressed along with some random .txt and .html files that screw up hashes, and where each individual copy may not receive a lot of traffic, but there exists a large set of more or less reposts that each receive traffic.

And so now there is a large group of files whose content is cloaked from easy analysis by filename and/or hash, and also hidden by the long tail. It is irresponsible to ignore this possibility, because one visit to any link sharing forum will show that that is exactly what is happening.

This is not downplaying the legal uses of hotfile and the like at all. But we can't let our biases get in the way.

I get what you're saying, but all they should have to show is that there are indeed significant legal uses. I don't think it needs to be a majority to be considered significant.

Either way, if it's true that over half the content on the site has never been downloaded, then the "backup use" argument should win the day. It's the strongest argument I've yet seen.

I get what you're saying, but all they should have to show is that there are indeed significant legal uses. I don't think it needs to be a majority to be considered significant.

Either way, if it's true that over half the content on the site has never been downloaded, then the "backup use" argument should win the day. It's the strongest argument I've yet seen.

Well, obviously each side is trying to prove what they want to prove, and I think the the most obvious truth is that they are both right. File lockers serve tremendous good, providing important legal services to many people, while at the same time allowing for 'tremendous bad' (depends how much you hate on Big Content), allowing for illegal file sharing for many people. Obviously, both views can coexist. However, there lies the crux of the problem. If you are being attacked for enabling "illegal file sharing", going "nu huh, we do all this good stuff for a lot of people", does not exclude you from enabling illegal file sharing. The question now becomes one of extent and where to draw the line.

Obviously, if we look at it from a file perspective, then you are correct. A full 50+% of content is for legal use. But if we look at it from a downloads and/or users involved perspective, then perhaps MPAA/RIAA is correct (I don't know, and the difficulty in finding out was the subject of my first post). Which one is the correct one depends on who you want to win.

"In fact, he found that the two single most widely-downloaded files on the site are ... open source applications "

So not the top 10 downloads...I assume the #3 download IS illegal??? and the other 8 of the top 10? no mention huh???

Is this meant to be unbiased???????

No, but then again he is a witness for the defense ...

And he doesn't need to show there is no illegal filesharing going on. He just needs to show there is substantial legal uses going on. I'm sure any judge or jury will realise or be pointed to the fact that both studies were made by parties with a specific interest.

"In fact, he found that the two single most widely-downloaded files on the site are ... open source applications "

So not the top 10 downloads...I assume the #3 download IS illegal??? and the other 8 of the top 10? no mention huh???

Is this meant to be unbiased???????

Nah, dude, the legal point being made is that there are substantial non-infringing uses. No one contests that some users do use these services to illegally distribute copyrighted content. But we can't ban things just because they can be used to do something illegal by some malicious party. E.g. I could use my car to conduct a ram raid (and some people do), but that doesn't mean we should ban cars.

I skipped through his report. It has been missummarized. In his conclusion, he states that he has proven that there are significant legal uses of HotFile. He shows that jDownloader by itself consists of 16 of the Top 100 most downloaded files, and that many other open source / creative commons stuff are in similar situations.

However, I do not believe his methodology can really support the claim that "more people use HotFile for legal than illegal things". For one thing, it is not statistically rigorous in any way (he admits this himself). Second of all, he only looked for the presence of legal downloads, while attacking a previous report (which went looking for illegal downloads) on methodological grounds (correctly I suppose, there were problems with the previous report).

So by your own admission there were mere "problems" with the previous report which focussed on purely IP violating or "illegal" uses, but per your expert evaluation this report focussing on legitimate uses is total crap. I guess in your mind, it's ok to focus only on illegal uses, but when we focus on legal uses then you don't believe in his methods?

I skipped through his report. It has been missummarized. In his conclusion, he states that he has proven that there are significant legal uses of HotFile. He shows that jDownloader by itself consists of 16 of the Top 100 most downloaded files, and that many other open source / creative commons stuff are in similar situations.

However, I do not believe his methodology can really support the claim that "more people use HotFile for legal than illegal things". For one thing, it is not statistically rigorous in any way (he admits this himself). Second of all, he only looked for the presence of legal downloads, while attacking a previous report (which went looking for illegal downloads) on methodological grounds (correctly I suppose, there were problems with the previous report).

So by your own admission there were mere "problems" with the previous report which focussed on purely IP violating or "illegal" uses, but per your expert evaluation this report focussing on legitimate uses is total crap. I guess in your mind, it's ok to focus only on illegal uses, but when we focus on legal uses then you don't believe in his methods?

My my, they certainly make them shills young these days.

He's making the perfectly reasonable point that this report has it's flaws too, and since it doesn't say specifically that the majority of downloads were IP violations may not be sufficient for the defence. That said, since it *does* raise flaws in the original paper, it might be an independant inquiry will be necessary, so it does still have it's uses (and makes HotFile's claims stronger)

Well, obviously each side is trying to prove what they want to prove, and I think the the most obvious truth is that they are both right. File lockers serve tremendous good, providing important legal services to many people, while at the same time allowing for 'tremendous bad' (depends how much you hate on Big Content), allowing for illegal file sharing for many people. Obviously, both views can coexist. However, there lies the crux of the problem. If you are being attacked for enabling "illegal file sharing", going "nu huh, we do all this good stuff for a lot of people", does not exclude you from enabling illegal file sharing. The question now becomes one of extent and where to draw the line.

Obviously, if we look at it from a file perspective, then you are correct. A full 50+% of content is for legal use. But if we look at it from a downloads and/or users involved perspective, then perhaps MPAA/RIAA is correct (I don't know, and the difficulty in finding out was the subject of my first post). Which one is the correct one depends on who you want to win.

I look at file lockers as virtual banks. Nearly every real bank would have laundered money through it, but you don't shutdown the bank if a client uses it to commit a crime. Unless the bank is nearly used solely to launder money.

Well, obviously each side is trying to prove what they want to prove, and I think the the most obvious truth is that they are both right. File lockers serve tremendous good, providing important legal services to many people, while at the same time allowing for 'tremendous bad' (depends how much you hate on Big Content), allowing for illegal file sharing for many people. Obviously, both views can coexist. However, there lies the crux of the problem. If you are being attacked for enabling "illegal file sharing", going "nu huh, we do all this good stuff for a lot of people", does not exclude you from enabling illegal file sharing. The question now becomes one of extent and where to draw the line.

Obviously, if we look at it from a file perspective, then you are correct. A full 50+% of content is for legal use. But if we look at it from a downloads and/or users involved perspective, then perhaps MPAA/RIAA is correct (I don't know, and the difficulty in finding out was the subject of my first post). Which one is the correct one depends on who you want to win.

I look at file lockers as virtual banks. Nearly every real bank would have laundered money through it, but you don't shutdown the bank if a client uses it to commit a crime. Unless the bank is nearly used solely to launder money.

Well, obviously each side is trying to prove what they want to prove, and I think the the most obvious truth is that they are both right. File lockers serve tremendous good, providing important legal services to many people, while at the same time allowing for 'tremendous bad' (depends how much you hate on Big Content), allowing for illegal file sharing for many people. Obviously, both views can coexist. However, there lies the crux of the problem. If you are being attacked for enabling "illegal file sharing", going "nu huh, we do all this good stuff for a lot of people", does not exclude you from enabling illegal file sharing. The question now becomes one of extent and where to draw the line.

Obviously, if we look at it from a file perspective, then you are correct. A full 50+% of content is for legal use. But if we look at it from a downloads and/or users involved perspective, then perhaps MPAA/RIAA is correct (I don't know, and the difficulty in finding out was the subject of my first post). Which one is the correct one depends on who you want to win.

I look at file lockers as virtual banks. Nearly every real bank would have laundered money through it, but you don't shutdown the bank if a client uses it to commit a crime. Unless the bank is nearly used solely to launder money.

The TCP/IP protocol is used by virtually all pirates and hackers today, and should be internationally banned. After that we can go after this ancient pirate method I've heard of, 'Sneakernet' <-- obviously people boasting about how sneaky they think they are!